(PC) Robinson v. Hernandez et al

Filing 19

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/29/2024 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Bren nan for all further proceedings. It is further RECOMMENDED that 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 17 Motion for Relief from default be denied without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. New Case Number: 2:23-cv-02542 TLN EFB. (Murphy, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DeANDRE ROBINSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:24-cv-02542-EFB (PC)

v.
HERNANDEZ, et al.,

15

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, currently confined in the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center, proceeds without

17
18

counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are two motions

19

filed by plaintiff on August 16, 2024: (1) a “Motion for an Injunction” (ECF No. 16) and (2) a

20

“Motion for Relief from Default” (ECF No. 17). For the reasons that follow, it is recommended

21

that the motions be denied.

22
23

I.

Background
On June 18, 2024, the court directed plaintiff to submit certain documents to the court to

24

effectuate service of the complaint by the U.S. Marshal. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff submitted the

25

documents on July 15, 2024. ECF No. 11. On August 7, 2024, he inquired into the status of the

26

case and the clerk informed plaintiff that the service documents had been received. ECF No. 13.

27

On August 15, 2024, the court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service on

28

defendants. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff’s pending motions were filed the next day. ECF Nos. 16, 17.
1

1

Both motions are premised on plaintiff’s (apparently mistaken) belief that jail authorities threw

2

away or otherwise failed to mail out the service documents to the court.

3

II.

4

Analysis
Plaintiff asks the court to issue an order requiring jail authorities to produce all of his legal

5

mail, send his mail out to the courts, and provide him with a copy of the mail log. ECF No. 16.

6

Although plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief from Default” is not clear, the court assumes that plaintiff

7

wishes to be relieved from any sanction that may have resulted from a failure to comply with the

8

court’s order that he submit service documents. ECF No. 17. As both motions are premised on

9

jail officials failing to mail plaintiff’s service documents to the court – a fact which is belied by

10
11
12

the court’s receipt of the service documents – they must be denied.
III.

Order and Recommendation
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to

13

this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for an injunction (ECF No. 16)

14

and motion for relief from default (ECF No. 17) be denied without prejudice.

15

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

17

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

18

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

19

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

20

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

21

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

22

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

23

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

24

Dated: August 29, 2024

25
26
27
28
2